Double Predestination

Recently, I have come across a number of discussions dealing with the doctrine known as "Double Predestination".

With predestination in its name, it's obviously a doctrine that proceeds from the general doctrine known as "Predestination".

As a reminder, the doctrine known as "Predestination" states that God is the one who determines who will be saved. He determines, before-hand, all those whom He will save for Himself. 

This means that the determiner of salvation is not man. Man doesn't choose Jesus, and his salvific journey doesn't begin at the point of making that decision, but rather, the salvific journey begins when God chooses... if He indeed chooses for it to be so.

This group of people are referred to as "the elect", according to the scriptures.

The doctrine of "Predestination" is often debated and attacked by various people as it outright goes against the popular ideas in relation to the nature of the will of man, his role in being born again, and... more importantly... the role God plays in all of this.

One would think that such a doctrine couldn't become even more "unlikeable", but it does, by introducing the idea of "Double Predestination".

A lot of people who claim to be believers, for some odd reason, really have a problem with God being the one who decides who goes to heaven, as per the general doctrine of predestination.

Well, "Double Predestination" states that not only does God choose who will go to heaven, He also chooses who will go to hell.

God determines before-hand, who will go to hell as well.

The main people who hold to both doctrines are obviously calvinists and those who are reformed.

Others may hold to one and not the other, or variations on one or both positions.

So it's not unusual to see vitriol being flung around in regards to not only these doctrines, but other doctrines held by calvinists, and calvinism in general.

------

Just like general predestination, and other biblical doctrines that calvinists elevate, there are numerous "go to" passages that are cited as proof texts.

One famous excerpt is found in Romans 9, and can be summed up in the following verse.

Romans 9:21 (ESV)

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

------

When it comes to "Double Predestination", there seems to generally be three camps.

The first camp states that God is passive in His predetermination.

This means that God chooses whom He will save, and "passes over" those whom He will not save.

So God isn't doing anything to make these people go to hell. They are doing it themselves, and God simply chooses not to save them from themselves.

I believe that many people who hold to the doctrine of predestination, fall in this camp.

---

The second camp states that God is active in His predetermination.

This obviously means that God makes it so that people will go to hell as per His predetermination.

There are a lot fewer people in this camp, as the very thought of it rubs people the wrong way.

However, those in this camp are not devoid of scriptures to grab in order to support their view.

One such scripture, which is also found in Romans 9, is the following...

---

Romans 9:17 (ESV)

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

---

If you go to the book of Exodus and read the historical account of what took place, God declares to Moses that He would harden Pharaoh's heart so as to not let the Israelites go.

God says that He is active in Pharaoh hardening his heart in disobedience to the command of God through Moses.

And the reason that God gives? So that He would glorify Himself.

---

The third camp states that it's a bit of both.

While I'm not sure, I assume there is even less people in the third camp than the second camp.

I fall in the third camp.

The reason that I disagree with the first two camps is that they both take an all or nothing view on this issue.

Either God is always passive or He's always active.

But the scriptures doesn't give us a clear indication of either position for us to be dogmatic about it.

We clearly see where God is definitely active in certain instances. This is even highlighted in Jesus' earthly ministry more than once.

However, there is nothing that says that God behaves in this active way all the time.

Just like in the case where John the Baptist was born again in his mother's womb. We can determine that God can do this, and has no problem doing it, but there is nothing to show that this is normative in any way.

It is not normative for God to take on human form and walk the earth. 

We know that He has done it a number of times before the incarnation, but He wasn't doing it all the time.

So it is with this. When we look at the totality of scripture, we know that there are times when God does actively intervene, but it doesn't seem to be a constant thing that He does.

If He does do it, it's because He specifically is causing a certain thing to play out how He wants it to play out.

---

Now, when discussing this topic, you will find that A LOT of people want to bring the topic into the will of man, and the deciding factor of salvation, and the warnings of scripture, etc., etc.

While those aren't necessarily invalid points, and aren't necessarily topics that shouldn't be examined in relation to what this doctrine proposes, I believe that many times we are too busy examining the speck under the microscope while ignoring the plank in our eyes.

I don't know if I see things this way due to how I became aware of calvinism and the doctrines of grace, but I see a great number of doctrine, that we are all too happy to debate, pick up, and put down, as if they are small things, when in reality, we are literally in danger of making false gods according to our own mind.

We are so quick to pit scripture against scripture, without any thought of reconciling the two, as if they are contradictory positions from two competing religions.

The easiest way to understand whether this is true or not, is to refer to what God says. Once God has spoken, any one who says differently is a liar.

Even if we think that the Apostle Paul or Apostle Peter is saying something different, it doesn't matter. If God has spoken clearly on the matter, then either those apostles must be wrong, or we're misunderstanding what they have said, because God can never be wrong, else He is not God, and christianity is false - making the entire discussion moot.

So, when I go into discussions about this, especially if it's a discussion with someone who disagrees with me, before we discuss anything about salvation, the will of man, the will of God, election, etc. - I do a quick check to see if we are actually seeking to meditate and delve deep into the words of God in order to gain understanding, or if the person is all about arguing and pushing their agenda/dogma.

I can't tell you how many "discussions" start and end with this quick check that I do, but it has shown me that there are many who are not about being corrected by scripture, or being shown that they are wrong in any thing. They are right, and there is nothing you can do to prove they are not right. Even if they go against what God has revealed about Himself... they are still right.

This is the same line of reasoning that I use in my skeleton argument.

The quick check goes like this...

Q. Is God all-powerful?

A. Yes

Q. Is God all-knowing?

A. Yes

Q. So God knows everything before it happens, and can do anything (according to His nature)?

A. Yes

Q. Before God creates someone, does He know whether they will be in hell or heaven?

The answer to this question should be a yes. If you affirm the first two points of doctrine, and affirm the clarification, then this question should also be affirmed.

Q. If God knows that when He creates person x, then that person will go to hell when all is said and done, can God simply not create them?

Again, the answer to this question should be a yes, for the same reasons as above.

Notice that these questions do not go into whether God chooses or not, how God chooses, the will of man, or any of those things.

It specifically focuses on two indisputable claims about the very nature of God, that God Himself... declares about Himself... as attributes that make Him God... that no other entity has.

In the most basic sense, Predestination and Double Predestination MUST be true, else God is not actually God.

To deny either positions is to create a different god, and not the one revealed in the scriptures.

God could not be all-knowing... meaning that He creates people and does not know whether or not they will be in heaven or hell before He creates them - so predetermination could never be a thing (for whatever reason you want to use).

OR

God could not be all-powerful... meaning that He knows whether or not the people He create will be in heaven or hell before He creates them - but He doesn't have the power to NOT create them. This is obviously problematic because if He doesn't have the power to NOT create them, hence preventing people from going to hell, how could we be sure He has the power to save people who are already in existence who are literally on their way to hell?

Wouldn't it necessitate more power to act upon a thing, than it is to not act upon a thing?

OR

God is neither all-knowing or all-powerful.

But again, this is clearly not what the scriptures state... out of God's own mouth no-less.

When I use that line of reasoning, usually the other party completely shuts down the conversation and goes into a tirade of ad hominems and "you calvinists believe x", "doctrines of demons", etc. etc.   

For such a being as the God of the bible, predestination and double predestination, are natural results of His very nature.

We don't need to understand the hows and the whys. There is no amount of whatifs that could change the fact that the God of the bible describes Himself as OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT.

For those to be true, certain things that are directly connected to those attributes must also be true. And if those things that are connected to the attributes are said to be false, then those attributes must also be false as well.

If you can't get past this line of questioning, you are dealing with something much bigger than false doctrine. You're dealing with a false god. An idol has been erected in the mind and heart of said person.

Don't exchange the simplicity of the truths of scripture, for complicated and heady doctrine because it comes from theologians. Satan is also a theologian and his theology is more on point than any human on the face of the earth.

I hope this helps you as you continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Maranatha

Y.A.C. Ep 8 - Blog

Y.A.C. Ep 7 - Blog

Are you an Arminian or a Calvinist? Is there a happy middle?

Y.A.C. Ep 6 - Blog

OSAS v POTS

The "Talking Snake" Objection

For awhile  now I've been hearing those who are against christianity object to it on the basis of it having a talking serpent and donkey.

They usually state this objection as though its some kind of supreme logic that completely reduces the bible to fairytale land.

This, of course, is absurd.

The argument is actually quite nonsensical when you actually put some thought in it.

So, for the benefit of exercising the ole grey matter, i thought i'd refute this objection.

First things first, we need to understand the presuppositions behind this argument.

That would be that a serpent cant talk because... ?

Well, the first thing we think of is literal verbal communication.

A serpent can't verbally talk because they dont have the necessary biological organs to permit them to do so.

Also, it's not that a serpent cant communicate at all. After all, they communicate with each other at the very least.

However, the bible didnt say that the serpent spoke like a human did.

This is simply assumed as being the case.

Also, the bible doesnt say that this was an everyday occurrence.

There is no biblical indication that adam and eve spent their days conversing with animals. This isnt The Jungle Book afterall.

No. This was a one off. Something different than the norm was going on that caused the serpent to be able to "speak" in a way that adam an eve could not only understand but to fully converse with.

The issue is that the Holy Spirit chose not to give us a lot of details in regards to how this was happening. So, speculation and imagination tend to run wild as to the how.

One option is that at this time in human history, due to the affects of sin not being present, that humans actually had a relationship with animals that included actual understanding.

We actually see instances of this today. Not with just cats and dogs, but animals such as lions, elephants, horses, etc.

Where there is a level of "friendship" where the human seems to have a connection to an animal where they seem to "understand" each other.

There are numerous cultures throughout human history who believe that its possible to have spiritual connections with animals.

Even with some people having an affinity to one sort of animal as opposed to others.

There are even people who claim to be "animal whisperers".

Once sin entered into creation through the rebellion of Adam, nature was set against him. One aspect being that humanity was no longer able to have that easy connection with animals to understand one another on such a level.

Another option is that it wasnt a real serpent, but rather one of the biblical antagonists know of Satan, who took on the form of a serpent.

Satan, after all, is an angelic being. He has the capacity of reason just like humans and us able to speak as well.

Angels are also able to transform themselves into other creatures, such as humans.

The third possible option is that Satan actually possessed an actual serpent, granting it the ability to communicate somehow.

Out of these three options, the 3rd one is considered to be the orthodox christian position.

The 1st option is a close second in popularity.

Some even combine those two and say they're both true.

The 2nd option is not believed by a large amount of people.
---

With that, we can see that the first presupposition is dealt with.

That is, the serpent was able to "speak" due to a spiritual ability to communicate with humans that was either innate or enabled by the possession of the spiritual entity known as Satan.

Those who have some knowledge of the bible are actually aware that this is the orthodox belief.

So, there is a second presupposition that we must look at.

That is, that its not possible for this scenario to take place.

This is where the objection becomes nonsensical.

For someone to maintain that this scenario couldnt take place, regardless of whether it is option one or option three, theyd have to be a materialist.

And once you're a materialist, you're worldview is not worth having.

A materialist is one who claims to believe that the only thing that exists is matter.

This means that there is no spiritual reality. So there is no spiritual entity known as Satan.

However, this also means that there is no such thing as a soul. Feelings aren't real either. Having a mind (not a brain) isnt possible. Logic and its laws aren't real either.

For materialism to be true, all nonmaterial truths, that even materialists believe to be true, must be false.

But since the very laws of logic are immaterial, and there is no scientific evidence to show that "matter in motion" will produce truth, holding to such a worldview means that you do not function within reality.

For example, no one is actually making decisions to do something. Decisions and reasoning are all immaterial.

Within a materialistic worldview, ones actions are detetmined by "matter in motion". In other words, a person doesnt actually have control over themselves, but are simply being controlled by their biological matter within their bodies.

Just as blood flows throughout our body and our heart beats without our control, so too, in a materialistic worldview, would our actions and decisions be beyond our control but would simply be the result of matter moving within our body... independent of our input.

We wouldnt even be considered sentient puppets.

For something to have sentience, it would need to have a mind. A mind is different from a brain as a mind is what we would consider to be consciousness. Some might call it awareness.

So a computer's brain would be its circuitry, but if a computer had a mind, it could recognise that its brain is the circuitry.

A materialist would have to deny the existence of the mind as its not material in nature, and so the puppet would never be sentient as without a mind, consciousness is not possible.
----

Lets do a brief recap before we continue.

Those that raise the objection that christianity is false because it has a talking serpent do so by presupposing two things.

The first presupposition is that serpents can't speak as humans do.

However, the bible doesnt say the serpent did that.

Instead the bible indicates that there was something spiritual happening rather than a serpent being able to speak like a human does.

The second presupposition is that there is no such thing as a spiritual reality.

This means that materialism is true. However, materialism is self-refuting as it is not what is experienced by any materialist and is not affirmed by science, as all science presupposes immaterial truths such as logic.

So, now that we know that position is flawed the only one left is that spiritual reality is indeed real.

Since it's real it makes no sense to assume that a spiritual being could not possess a creature nor cause it to do something that it couldnt do before.

As a matter of fact, the bible shows that this is actually the case. That spirits can and do unhabit and possess creatures, be they human or not, and cause creatures to be able to do things not normally possible.

One example of this is the demoniac mentioned in the new testament. He was possessed by multiple spirits and was able to break chains with his bare hands which is not a normal human feat.

It also states that when Christ Jesus spoke to the demoniac that it was the spirits who spoke back... as a collective... instead of the man himself.

In other words, once the existence of the spiritual side of life is affirmed there is no good reason to deny the possibility that a serpent can indeed speak as long as the right spiritual conditions are met.

That being said, the majority of the people who use this objection are not materialists. They arent atheists either.

They are simply those who have an unreasonable bias against christianity and will use any nonsensical argument to try and knock christianity down, as long as it looks good on the surface.

However, this argument doesn't even look good on the surface because the spiritual life, that which is immaterial in nature, is actually reality.

Everybody affirms that this is the case.

And those who don't affirm this basic truth, do not function within reality, but are the ones believing in fantasy.

Soli Deo Gloria

The Sin of Sinless Perfectionism (3/3)

Recently, our christian brother Jeff Durbin of Apologia Radio, was interviewed twice for project that he is doing called End Abortion Now - (Interview 1, 2).

During the interviews, the host of the show that he was on, was pushing false/heretical doctrine known commonly as Sinless Perfection.

In the last post, I looked at what would happen the the scriptures if their position was true.

This time, we'll tackle the elephant in the room. If the previous posts weren't bad enough, lets look at the most glaring and obvious issue.

---
(continued)

3. Sinless perfectionism, hold the perfection.

The last point that i think is necessary to be made is the sheer self-deception and gall one would have to have to consider themselves sinless.

Not only does it elevate oneself way too much, but it greatly lowers God and robs Him of His due glory.

Why? Because God alone is perfect.

The sinless perfectionist of any stripe, to actually claim sinlessness, has to say that they've reached perfection.

Why? Because that is the command of God.

Matthew 5:48 (ESV)  You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

To be perfect and sinless, one would have to love their neighbor perfectly and love God perfectly, as those are the commands that every other command rests on.

Matthew 22:36-40 (ESV)  “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 

And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 

This is the great and first commandment. 

And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 

On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

-

Jesse as well as Joyce state that they are becoming more like Christ.

That's not possible if you're sinless.

If there are areas in your life that needs to conform to Christ, that means there is sin in your life.

Why?  Because Christ was indeed sinless.

Meaning He loved God and man perfectly.

So if the sinless perfectionist truly believes what they are saying, then they have already reached the end goal of every christian.

They are the real life standard that a christian can look to and imitate.

This means that God's perfection, His standard of holiness, is absolute moral standard is displayed at all time in the lives, hearts, and minds of the sinless perfectionist.

Never mind that the Apostle Paul says this...

Philippians 3:12 (ESV)  Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.

-

The sinless perfectionist elevates themselves and at the same time brings God to their level.

After all, if one is truly sinless then they become a reflection of God.

Why? Because you must remember that to be sinless is to be perfect like God is perfect.

So although one wouldn't necessarily be able to say raise people from the dead because of their being perfect, all of their actions and motives would be perfect due to their being no sin present.

The level of their love for God and man could not be surpassed. Even Jesus would be on their level.

---

We've now taken a look at sinless perfectionism and 3 aspects of how this doctrine is false and heretical.

It is not possible for a believer to ever reach a state of sinlessness in this life.

However, once the second coming of Christ takes place, and we receive our glorified bodies, then, and only then, will we be sinless and perfect.

As we will be like Christ from that moment and forever more.

Until then, the old man of sin will always be present, warring against our spiritual man.

And it's our responsibility to crucify our flesh daily, sowing to the spirit and not to the flesh. Walking in the good works that God has prepared for us.

Like Paul, let us continue to strive for the prize that is before us. Let us continue to set aside every weight of sin so that our race be not hindered and we can endure until the end.

Maranatha

The Sin of Sinless Perfectionism (2/3)

Recently, our christian brother Jeff Durbin of Apologia Radio, was interviewed twice for project that he is doing called End Abortion Now - (Interview 1, 2).

During the interviews, the host of the show that he was on, was pushing false/heretical doctrine known commonly as Sinless Perfection.

In the last post, I looked at some verses that are use for the position and against the position.

This time, we'll see what would happen to the scriptures if their position was true.

---

(continued)

2. Contradiction and Consequences

Those who hold to sinless perfectionism will usually dismiss the  context and continue to force their position.

This, of course, means that the scriptures are contradictory, and therefore cant be considered the word of God... at least those books that present the contradiction.

For example, if their position was true, we'd have to get rid of romans, and anything that is from Paul before that point in his life.

Why? Because Paul contradicts this position, which in turn contradicts 1 John 3.

Romans 7:17-25 (ESV)  So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 

For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 

Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 

For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

-

Here, we see the Apostle Paul describe the life of a believer. But he does so by pointing to himself and what he struggles with and sees within his own life.

According to Jesse Lee Peterson's take on sinless perfectionism, Paul couldn't be an apostle because he still sins. Therefore is of the devil because one born of God can't sin.

It actually gets worse.

In the letter to the Galatians, we see the Apostle Peter sinning as well.

Galatians 2:11-14 (ESV)  But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 

For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 

And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 

But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

-

So according to Jesse's doctrine, Peter wasn't an apostle either, nor was he saved for that matter.

This means we need to disregard anything Peter said to the church authoritatively. As he wasn't speaking the word of God.

If you notice, the new testament is starting to get smaller.

However, that's not even the worse part.

You see, for Jesse's doctrine to be true, God would have to be wrong.

You see, Peter was one of those who were filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of pentecost.

He is one of those who spoke in tongues and was one of the people God used to draw to the Jews attention that God was also saving gentiles via the incident at Cornelius' house.

Barnabas, whom the Holy Spirit commanded the church to set aside for the work He called him to, was said to be a Holy Spirit filled believer in Acts.

Acts 11:22-24 (ESV)  The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 

When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.

-

The reason I'm pointing this out is because only believers are filled with the Holy Spirit.

Romans 8:9 (ESV)  You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Christ Jesus even tells us that those who are not saved, meaning they're of the world, can't receive the Holy Spirit.

John 14:16-17 (ESV)  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

If Jesus is correct, then Jesse is wrong.

If Jesse is correct, then Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God because they do the opposite of what Jesse says can happen.

So the Holy Spirit shouldn't have filled Peter and Barnabas as they weren't saved as evidenced by their sin later on.

Only those who are saved cant sin.

Also, Jesus shouldn't have said the world can't receive the Holy Spirit when they surely can.

The Sin of Sinless Perfectionism (1/3)

Sinless perfectionism is the belief that a believer cannot commit sin once they are saved.

If a professing believer was to sin, it is actually evidence that they are not actually saved.

The first time i came across this false doctrine was years ago when i was reading an article at carm about the heretic Joyce Meyer.

She holds to this belief. She even goes as far as to say that believing otherwise is a lie from hell.

This is the first time i'd heard something so ludicrous.

The second time i heard this false doctrine was when i reconnected with an acquaintance that i used to go to church with.

Both of us left that church and hadn't seen each other in years.

He started his own church and after a number of anti-calvinist tirades, i found out that he also held to this false doctrine.

That was not too long ago.

More recently, i came across this false doctrine a third time.

This time, it was in a radio program featuring brother Jeff Durbin from Apologia Radio.

Brother Jeff was on a radio program twice, being interviewed because of the work he is doing with the End Abortion Now project. (Interview 1, 2).

The host of the program is also a professing christian, a reverend apparently, and one who holds to the false doctrine of sinless perfectionism.

The hosts name is Jesse Lee Peterson.

Joyce as well as Jesse have the ears of an incredibly large amount of people.

Sinless perfectionism isn't simply a false doctrine, but is actually heresy (maybe a damning heresy, depending how far one goes with it).

The majority of the time, the discussion will revolve around one point in scripture.

1 John 3:6-10 (KJV)  Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

These verses are usually what the sinless perfectionist clings to.

They will point and say that someone who is saved will not and can not sin.

How can they be wrong when the scriptures clearly affirm what they are saying?

Well, thats what we're going to be looking at.

-

1. Context, Context, Context

The first issue we should deal with is the context of these verses.

If you notice, I used the KJV.

Translations that are more up to date will have the word practice inserted.

1 John 3:9 (ESV)  No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

Sinless perfectionists usually don't accept this.

The reason practice, and keep on sinning, has been included is because the greek word used here emphasises a continuous, habitual, lifestyle.

This is why modern translations translate it differently than the older translations do.

For more details on the greek, I recommend reading about it on carm.

-

The second issue relating to the context is that these verses appear 3 chapters into the letter.

In the first chapter, we are told the following:

1 John 1:8 (ESV)  If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

And...

1 John 1:10 (ESV)  If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

This letter is being written to believers from a believer.

The author includes himself as one who would be deceived and not have God's word in him if he doesn't confess that he has sin.

Even if one wants to say that that wasn't addressed to believers, the author still includes himself by saying "we".

But that makes no sense if he is now sinless.

-

The second chapter shows the same thing.

1 John 2:1-2 (ESV)  My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

If sinless perfectionism was true, his reason for writing would be a waste of time because they CAN NOT sin.

But not only does he say they can, if they do, Christ is their advocate. Christ is also their propitiation.

So not only does the author make it crystal clear that he is speaking to believers, but he also includes himself as having sin.

Comfortable Limited Atonement? (part 4)

So far, we've looked at a number of areas that are directly affected by the doctrine of limited atonement (1, 2, 3)

With all this being said, the question still remains... how can we find comfort in such a doctrine as limited atonement?

The answer, simply put, is this - if we love God, then we will find comfort in the doctrine because the doctrine is a reflection of who God is.

And to desire something different is to desire a god in ones own image. A god that is not the true and living God. A god that behaves how we want it to behave.

That is not the God testified about in the scriptures.

God has the freedom to do with His creation what He wants to do with it.

-

Romans 9:21 (ESV)  Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

---

God has no obligation to treat everyone the same, and not doing so doesn't make God unjust.

----

Romans 9:14-15 (ESV)  What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!

For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

---

The limiting of the scope of the atonement was necessary to keep God's righteous justice in tact - so that He's not guilty of any wrong doing.

---

Romans 3:21-26 (ESV)  But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

---

The focus of the limiting atonement should not be upon those who are not elected to salvation.

In their case, God hasn't broken a promise to them, or acted unjust towards them.

Instead, we should look at those who have been elected.

They have been loved with a great love.

God has looked upon them with a kindness that they didnt deserve at all.

God has arranged it that they will enjoy Him forever, as children in His own household.

God has even promised that He will never leave or forsake them, but mold them into the image of Christ.

Our comfort is found in the fact that God freely chose us when He didn't have to.

1 John 4:10 (ESV)  In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

---

It's this knowledge about what God has done for and to us, and who God is, that should cause us to not only be comforted by the doctrine of Limited Atonement, but it should cause us to look at God as a merciful, gracious, and loving God.

---

I hope that the Lord God has blessed you through this "brief" look at limited atonement.

Amen

Comfortable Limited Atonement? (part 3)

In the last two posts, we looked at two aspects of what the doctrine of limited atonement affects as it pertains directly to God.

In the first article, we looked at God's complete freedom (sovereignty) to not only limit the scope of the atonement to only be applied to those whom He chooses... but also the freedom to limit any and all blessings in any fashion He chooses.

We see Him exercise this right as the creator of all things, repeatedly throughout scripture.

The second article looked at God's perfection in light of God's freedom.

The third thing we need to focus on, are the theological implications of what a rejection or acceptance of limited atonement, as Christ describes it, means.

Firstly, there is the obvious impact of God's word failing.

Isaiah 55:10-11 (ESV)  For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

-

Isaiah 46:8-11 (ESV)  Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country.

I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.

-

Numbers 23:19 (ESV)  God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

---

The word of God is so sure, that those who falsify it are to be put to death. How does one know this crime has been committed? When what is said doesn't come to pass.

As scripture tells us...

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (ESV)  But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’

And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously.

You need not be afraid of him.

----

The theological issue here is that Christ clearly teaches it's God who chooses.

The implication of God not being the one that limits the atonement, means that Jesus is a false teacher.

This is because He says at one point...

John 6:37-39 (ESV)  All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

-

He also says, in another point...

John 10:25-29 (ESV)  Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

---

So then, since Christ actually teaches it, we must realise that He stakes His very deity on it.

So, we should find comfort in this doctrine, for one, because it makes God... God.

The fact that the doctrine is taught by Christ Himself, and the word of God never fails, means that this is a prerogative of God.

For it to not be so, God would no longer be God.

---

Another theological implication of this doctrine, which i believe is more common to this discussion, is the issue of God's justice.

This is usually referred to as double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy is a legal term which is defined as the following-

the act of causing a person to be put on trial two times for the same crime (source: Merriam-Webster)

Do we see this happening in any view of limited atonement? No.

So the issue that relates to the justice of God is not one of double jeopardy.

Instead, the legal term would be, a misscarriage of justice. This is defined as-

an error made in a court of law that results in an innocent person being punished or a guilty person being free (source: Merriam-Webster)

Some may see this and think that the work of atonement, as a whole, should be considered a misscarriage of justice.

Many unbelievers actually believe this.

However, that isn't the case.

The issue that needs to be brought to the forefront is the voluntary offering of Christ to pay the debt, and the acceptance of that proposal by the Father.

This is why salvation is achieved by the substitutionary sacrifice provided by Christ.

He voluntarily became the substitute, and received the wrath of God that we would have had to receive.

A miscarriage of justice would occur when the innocent involuntarily pays the price of the guilty.

To right this miscarriage, the innocent would be set free, and the guilty would face what they should've faced.

Bringing this thought into our context of the atonement now...  if it is true that the atonement is limited in power, instead of scope, God would knowingly be carrying out a misscarriage of justice.

Why would this be so?

If Christ is dying only for those whom the Father has elected and gave to Him, and all of those people are saved, then no miscarriage takes place.

Why? Because all those whom Christ volunteered to take the punishment for, receive the benefit of His actions, and God's justice is satisfied by Christ's sacrifice.

The other view, however, presents us with the problem of the miscarriage of justice.

If the atonement is limited in power, instead of scope... that is to say, if Christ actually took the punishment for all people in the world, and any one of them doesn't receive the benefit of His actions, then the miscarriage has taken place.

How so?

You have to remember that God is omniscient. He is all knowing.

Scripture tells us the following...

Matthew 25:33-34 (ESV)  And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

-

Ephesians 1:3-4 (ESV)  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

---

In other words, God knew who were going to be His before they were even born.

Even if one believes that God has to look forward in time to get the information about who would choose Him (which is an unbiblical and heretical position), they must still affirm that God, at that point, knows who will be His when all is said and done before it plays out in time.

Therefore, when Christ received the punishment from the Father on behalf of everybody in the world, the Father knew which people would go to hell anyway.

Meaning, that Christ receiving the punishment on their behalf is a complete waste, as they would never receive the benefit of His actions.

So, at that point, God willingly commits a miscarriage of justice, and will have to rectify this miscarriage by pouring out His wrath on these people at the last day.

So, when scripture states...

Deuteronomy 32:4 (ESV)  The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.

---

This becomes false. All of God's ways couldn't be justice. God couldnt be just and upright if in the end He is punishing the Son for no reason, which is exactly what takes place when the atonement is limited in power, rather than scope.

The sacrificial atonement of Christ is an issue of justice in the sight of God.

The soul that sins, must die.

They've incurred an infinite debt by rebelling against the infinite God.

If God is just, He cant just let these things slide. He can't simply sweep them under the carpet.

But, the people are not able to pay for their sins, because they arent able to pay an infinite debt.

So, God becomes a man, and takes upon Himself the punishment that we deserve.

Not only that, He then turns around and gives those people His righteousness.

Anybody who doesnt put their faith in Christ, will bear their own punishment on judgement day... but God knows who these people would be from day one.

It's all well and good to say that God is giving them a chance, and pleading with them, but the problem is that not only does God already know what the answer is, but Christ was punished for no reason, when it comes to those people whom God already knows will face the second death.

When all is said and done, in relation to those people whom the Father already knew will face His wrath, punishing the innocent Christ is all in vain.

Just as it is written...

1 Corinthians 15:14 (ESV)  And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

-

And again where scripture says...

1 Corinthians 15:10 (ESV)  But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.

---

If indeed Christ has been punished for the sins of these people, and based on that, God grants them grace to believe, yet He leaves it up to them...

... the very fact that God already knows before hand who will and who will not believe, means that Christ suffered punishment in vain and that grace is also in vain.

The innocent ends up being punished for no reason, and the miscarriage of justice, having to be rectified in the end.

This, actually makes God a sinner.

How? God's law says that there should be no injustice in court.

Leviticus 19:15a (ESV)  You shall do no injustice in court.

---

Remember, the sacrificial atonement of Christ is an issue of satisfying the justice of God.

God becomes guilty, a breaker of His own law.

Exodus 23:7 (ESV)  Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.

---

The Father becomes guilty of charging Christ falsely and killing the innocent and righteous.

Why? Remember, God already knows before hand that these people will be in hell. God already knows that these people will have to answer for their sins when the last day comes.

Since that is the case, the Father is not punishing Christ for their sins because He already knows that they will receive the punishment themselves.

If the cup of wrath that these people filled up, was actually poured out on Christ, then there is no wrath to pour out on them at judgement day.

There would be no sins for the Father to actually judge.

But we know that these people will have to answer to God for their sins. So their sins haven't been taken care of by Christ on the cross.

So, if it is true that the Father punishes Christ on behalf of these people, who He knows will have to answer for their sins anyway, then Christ is being punished unjustly - it is a miscarriage of justice.

Let's see if i can explain it a different way.

Let's say there were 10 people who owed large debts to the government.

The debts are so large that they are unable to pay it.

They have a window of time that they must pay the debt, else they will be put in prison. Once they are in prison, no further payments can be paid towards the debt.

A rich man hears about the plight of these 10 people, decides to pay their debt, and starts to make preparations to that end.

The rich man starts to make the payments, but the time has come to an end for 3 of the people before he was able to make payment. So they are now in prison.

The rich man is aware that they are in prison and no payment made will affect their debt.

The state, however, knows that the rich man intended to pay the debts for these 3 people as well, and requests the payments to still be made.

The state, the rich man, and the debtors, know that any payment made now will not matter as it will not go towards the debt.

The rich man is made to make the 3 payments anyway.

Is this not a miscarriage of justice?

The state has taken money from the rich man, knowing fully well that the money will never be paid to what the rich man wanted to pay.

The rich man is now out that money, suffering an unintended loss - as his purpose was to help the 3 debtors, but they will not receive the help even after the payment has been made.

The only one who benefits, is the state, and that is illegal.

It is known as misappropriation of funds.

Although this scenario isnt exactly what is taking place in the atonement, im hoping that the similarities will stick out to enable us to see the issue at hand.

If indeed the atonement is limited by power, rather than scope, then the Father becomes complicit in an injustice towards His own Son.

---

The third theological implication in regards to this issue, is the omniscience of God.

There are many who are able to identify the problem with limiting the power of the atonement while at the same time maintaining the biblical truth that God is all-knowing.

Instead of limiting the scope, they decide to remove God's omniscience.

By doing this, they attempt to reconcile their theology with the premise that Christ did pay for everyone's sins and no miscarriage of justice took place.

If God is not all knowing, then this would supposedly mean that God is not complicit in an injustice.

This, of course, doesn't follow.

Even if the Father didn't know of the implications of His actions towards the Son on behalf of everyone in the world, the result is still the same.

Something wrong has still occurred, regardless of whether it was known beforehand or not.

However, by this point, we've already ceased discussing the God of the scriptures.

The God described in the bible is all-knowing.

As a matter of fact, God takes this challenge to His knowledge quite personal.

As scripture tells us here...

Isaiah 41:21-23 (ESV)  Set forth your case, says the Lord; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob.

Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come.

Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified.

-

Isaiah 44:6-8 (ESV)  Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.

Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”

---

The scripture shows that as far as God is concerned, if you can't declare the future, you can't be God.

It's a characteristic of His deity.

So, it's not possible to remove God's knowledge and yet still claim we are talking about the God of the scriptures.

This is why many say that to be a consistent arminian, meaning that they limit the atonement by power, one is forced to be an open theist (one who denies that God is all-knowing.

Meditate on these things and join us next time as wrap up our brief look at the doctrine of limited atonement.

Comfortable Limited Atonement? (part 2)

In the previous article, i began looking at the doctrine known as Limited Atonement, in order to get an understanding as to how this doctrine can help us to find comfort in a God who would intentionally limit the scope of His atonement, i.e. picking and choosing whom He will show love to by dying in th3 cross for their sins.

The first thing we looked at is the freedom that God has to treat one human different than another.

This reality is shown all throughout the scriptures.

The second thing we need to look at, is the fact that since the scripture teaches that this is indeed who God is, that God is not going to change Himself in order to make our sensibilities, which are corrupted by sin, at ease.

God is the perfect and holy creator and sustainer of all things.

He is who He is, and never needs to change because of His inherent perfection.

It is natural that there will be things about God that we don't understand, or perhaps don't like.

The reason for this is because we are sinners, while God is Holy.

We will not always see eye to eye with God, and in those instances, we should confess our sin of defiance before our creator and supreme authority.

As it is written...

Isaiah 55:8-9 (ESV)  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

---

It's one thing for the unregenerate to say that God should change His standard, or that His judgements aren't righteous in some way, but the believer is not able to say such a thing.

If it were true, then we are not worshipping a perfect God.

It makes perfect sense for a human to not agree with everything that God does.

For one, we are finite whereas God is infinite.

Furthermore, we hindered by the sin nature that dwells within us.

So there will be times when we think there is a better action that God should take, as opposed to what He is actually doing.

We may even find ourselves repeating the words of abraham.

Genesis 18:23-25 (ESV)  Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?

Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city.

Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it?

Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked!

Far be that from you!

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?”

---

Look at abraham's concern. It's for the righteousness of God.

From abraham's perspective, if God kills the righteous during the judgement of the wicked, that isn't righteousness.

Is he correct?

No.

But from his limited point of view, he believes that he is correct.

The believer can't make such claims. We should always concede to God's judgements and His ways.

Why?

Because we confess that God is perfect in His attributes.

He has perfect wisdom, holiness, and righteousness.

He is not simply the most high in the sense that in all of creation He is above all but there is still a place above even that, that He hasn't attained.

That is not perfection. That is to be almost perfect/near perfection.

No. We state that God is the very example of perfection.

Since that is the case, we must confess, that even though we may not understand, every action that God takes is perfectly just and righteous.

What we should do, is to make sure our understanding of an action we believe God is taking is actually consistent with His character as revealed in scripture.

God limiting the scope of the atonement is very consistent with the way He deals with man.

So the claim that its wrong for Him to limit the atonement in this way or that God would be "better" somehow if He limited the power of the atonement instead, means that God is certainly not perfect in His attributes.

Meditate on that for awhile.

Join us next time as we look at another point in relation to the doctrine of limited atonement.

Comfortable Limited Atonement? (part 1)

I was in the Reformed Pub recently, as one does, and was in a discussion regarding the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

The conversation was specifically centered around whether it's possible to find security or comfort in a God who uses the reformed view of limiting the atonement.

For those who are unaware, there are two views of limited atonement.

1. The non-reformed view is that the atonement is limited in its power.

That is to say, God has decided to give the authority for salvation to man.

Ultimately, God wants to save everyone, tries to save everyone, but can't save everyone, because He purposefully limits the power of the atonement.

2. The reformed view is that the atonement is limited by scope.

That is to say, God has decided to not save everyone.

Ultimately, God decides who He wants to save, and is successful in doing so. Those whom He chooses not to save, He leaves in order that they will, effectively, send themselves to hell.

He purposefully limits the scope of the atonement.

-

Often, you will hear people say that they can't serve, love, or believe in a God that would not attempt to save all people.

Despite this being the exact thing shown in scripture from Genesis to Revelation, the fact that they would even utter such words, is at times, completely mind-boggling.

The question will sometimes be put forth, how can any love, serve, and believe in such a God.

How does believing this about God give us any sort of comfort?

Well, let's take a brief look at this doctrine and how it should cause us to find comfort in God.

-

The first thing we need to briefly address is that God limiting the scope of not only His salvation, but even His other more general blessings to humanity, is something clearly taught throughout scripture.

God is not obligated by the fact of being our creator to treat everyone the same.

He is free to choose what we wants to do to and for the creatures He makes.

God directly states this exact thing.

Exodus 33:19 (ESV)  And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.

---

God even puts this very idea into practice

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 (ESV)  When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction.

You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.

---

Joshua even reiterates this sentiment...

Joshua 11:20 (ESV)  For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the Lord commanded Moses.

---

The Holy Spirit inspired the apostle paul to pick up on this, in regards to God being free to differentiate between two people as He sees fit and treat them differenyly based solely upon His own will and so he penned the following...

Romans 9:6-18 (ESV)  But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!

For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

---

So, we see that God, from the beginning, has always chosen some over others by His own will, for His own purpose.

So this God, who limits the scope of His blessings, both eternal and temporal, is the God who is described all throughout scripture.

Let that sink in.

The doctrine of limited atonement points us to who God is, and the inherent characteristic of His nature - the freedom to choose.

So, even if we didn't recognise it all throughout the scriptures, the doctrine brings it to the forefront of our minds.

Join us next time as we continue our brief look at why and how limitied atonement should give us comfort in the God of our salvation.

Amen

Because Christ Says So (part 5)

Today, we wrap up our brief series in the doctrines of grace.

So far, we've seen Christ teach...

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistable Grace

The last point we want to see from Christ, is also one that brings controversy.

P - Perseverance of the Saints

This doctrine states that all those who have received salvation, will not lose it, but will be kept secure by the power of God.

Again, i'm not endeavoring to give a proper refutation of those who disagree with this position.

The goal here is to simply provide evidence that Christ taught this doctrine.

1. John 6:37-40 (ESV)  All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

- Here we see one of the strongest quotes for this position.

Jesus teaches that the will of the Father is that He will not lose anyone whom the Father gives Him.

Not only that, but this is actually what Jesus came down from heaven to do. To secure those whom He was given.

2. John 6:48-51 (ESV)  I am the bread of life.

Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.

This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

- Jesus tells that there is a finality to eating His bread. Those who eat it will not die.

3. John 6:53-58 (ESV)  So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.

This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

- Here, we see Christ reiterating His previous point.

4. John 10:27-30 (ESV)  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

My Father, who has given them to me,is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
I and the Father are one.”

- Jesus teaches that He only gives eternal life to His sheep, whom He knows, and they know Him.

They will never perish.

Not only is no one able to take His sheep out of His hands, but they aren't able to take them out of the Father's hands either.

They both share the work of keeping the sheep secure.

5. John 15:16 (ESV)  You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

- Here we see Christ teaching that we don't choose Him, but the other way around.

Not only does He choose but He appoints us to bear fruit.

He says this on the back of saying that all those in Him who don't bear fruit will be, naturally, thrown in the fire.

Yet He appoints those whom He chooses to bear fruit and abide in Him.

It's His authority that keeps them abiding in Him.

6. Matthew 13:25, 37-41 (ESV)  but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.

He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.

The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels.

Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.

The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

- Here, we see the explanation of the parable about the wheat and tares (weeds).

The one who places the wheat there is God. The number of wheat doesn't increase or decrease, as God knows what He sowed.

On judgement day, the tares (weeds) are gathered together and cast in the fire. Leaving the wheat.

7. John 14:1-4 (ESV)  Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me.

In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

And you know the way to where I am going.”

- Here, we see Christ making a promise to His disciples, and by extension, all of us that belong to Him.

In the Father's house, there are many rooms (mansions in some translations).

Christ goes to prepare a place for us. And all those whom He prepares a place for, He will come back and to receive them, and take them to that place He's prepared.

Clearly, Jesus believes their salvation is secure.

-------

We've now looked at a few passages for each point of the doctrines of grace.

Jesus clearly teaches these things outright, and even when not speaking about them directly, you can clearly see these theological presuppositions present.

For example, He clearly believes the salvation of the thief on the cross is secure for Him to be able to promise that he will be in paradise that day.

Even though Christ will die before the thief does.

Every now and then, Christ pulls back the veil to give us the spiritual understanding of what we're seeing in the natural.

It's that spiritual explanation from Christ that clearly teaches these doctrines.

And since its Christ teaching these things, they must be true.

So we ought to believe them and seek to understand them to the best of our ability.

We ought to teach them to others as well. As the Holy Spirit saw fit to include these things that Christ spoke, in the scriptures so that we would be taught, reproved, corrected, and trained in righteousness, so that we may be equipped for every good work.

Amen

Because Christ Says So (part 4)

Yesterday, we saw what Christ taught in regards to the doctrine known as limited atonement.

Today, we'll be taking a look at what is commonly known as irresistable grace.

I - Irresistable Grace

This doctrine often gets flack, as the scriptures does seem to show people resisting God's grace.

So since that's the case, how can God's grace be called irresistable?

The doctrine is stated in this way - all those whom God has elected to salvation, will be saved.

Although this doctrine is mainly in the realm of soteriology, it is undergirded by a number of important doctrines that have to do with the very nature of God.

Let's see what Christ taught in regards to this doctrine.

1. John 6:37 (ESV)  All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

- Here, we see Jesus making a statement concerning the hidden things of God.

Although what's said here also touches on limited atonement, we should also note its application to irresistable grace.

All those that the Father gives to Christ, will come to Him.

For Jesus to make this statement, there can't be any case when a person given to Him, will not come to Him.

If that was the case, then this statement is false - and Jesus becomes a false teacher by default.

2. John 10:1-5 (ESV)  Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.

But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.

When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.

A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”

- Here, we see Christ actually teaching that the calling of His sheep - or in other words, the drawing of the Father to Christ, is effectual.

Why? Because these are His people. His sheep.

Although His sheep is intermingled with others, when the owner of the sheep calls them, the recognise His voice and come.

3. John 10:16 (ESV)  And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

- Jesus repeats the sentiment, but applies it to a group of other sheep that He has.

He's going to bring both flocks together.

How does He think this will happen? His theology is that they will listen to His voice.

So His call is effectual.

4. John 6:43-45 (ESV)  Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’

Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—"

- Here, we see Jesus teaching the effectiveness of the call.

Everyone who is drawn by the Father, will come to Christ without fail.

Jesus' theology even causes Him to interpret old testament scripture to reflect this truth.

While it is true that the scriptures does show the resisting of God's grace, Christ clearly identifies two different aspects of the gospel call.

This is summed up in the last statement made by Christ at the end of the parable of the wedding feast...

Matthew 22:14 (ESV)  For many are called, but few are chosen.”

This is the doctrine of the effectual call of salvation, also known as, irresistable grace... according to Christ

Because Christ Says So (part 3)

Last time , we looked at what Jesus taught in regards to the doctrine known as unconditional election.

He clearly teaches us that salvation is a decision made by God, not man.

And this decision isn't based upon anything that is within man or anything that man has done.

No. This decision is based on what is within God. Namely, love.

The next point of doctrine is a bit controversial.

L - Limited Atonement

Every orthodox christian, believes that the atonement is limited.

If they did not, they would fall into the heretical camp known as universalism.

There are two major views pertaining to this doctrine.

The first, which is an error, and can be considered to be heresy, is that the power of the atonement is limited.

The view is stated in this way - the sacrifice of Christ atoned for the sins of everybody in the entire world. But, this only makes salvation possible.

The person must now accept the atoning work that Christ did on the cross, or else the atonement will not be applied to them.

This is the view that many christians hold to, but it is not what is taught by Christ.

Jesus' view is stated in this way - the sacrifice that He made on the cross, actually atoned for the sins of all of those who are elected to salvation.

All those who are not saved, are so, because God has chosen not to save then.

So the atonement is limited based on the will of God, not man.

A lot if people take issue with that, however, we will not be getting into that discussion today.

Right now, we want to have a look at what Jesus taught in regards to the limiting of the atonement.

1. John 6:35-37 (ESV)  Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

- Here, we see Jesus tell the people who He is speaking to that the ones who will come to Him, are those who have been given to Him by the Father.

He gives this as an explanation as to why these people see Him, but don't believe.

This is a clear indication that the reason all people aren't saved, is because the Father has not given all people to Christ.

If He had, then they would all come.

2. John 10:24-27 (ESV)  So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense?

If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe.

The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

- Here, we see Jesus once again explaining why these people do not believe.

It's not because they don't have enough proof, or have a lack of understanding.

No. The reason they don't believe, is because they are not Christ's sheep.

Notice, Christ isn't teaching that one becomes His sheep at the point that they believe.

No. One believes because they are His sheep.

3. John 10:11-18 (ESV)  I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.

He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

- Here, Christ teaches that He lays down His life for the sheep.

The sheep He lays His life down for are not strays... or strangers to Him.

He knows who these sheep are. He owns them. They belong to Him. As such, they listen to and obey His voice when He calls.

A point has to be emphasised though. If He lays His life down for the sheep, and He has identified people as not being His sheep, has He laid down His life for those people as well?

4. Matthew 25:31-33 (ESV)  When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.

Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.

- Here, we see Jesus answering our previous question. Those who are not His sheep, are goats. At the last day, He will separate the goats from the sheep.

5. Matthew 25:10-12 (ESV)  And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut.

Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’

But he answered, ‘Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.’

- This is the ending to the parable of the ten virgins.

At the end of this parable, the bridegroom arrives while the 5 foolish virgins are away and collects the 5 wise virgins.

The 5 foolish virgins go to where the bridegroom lives, and request to be let in, only to be told that he doesn't know them.

The question should be asked then.

If he doesn't know them, was he actually coming to get them?

Of course not. Even if they had been there at his arrival, they are strangers to him. He wouldn't have collected them anyway.

But, one thing that needs to be pointed out is that bridegroom does not seek to have a relationship at that point.

Notice what is going on. They are pursuing the bridegroom, and he chooses not to enter into an engagement.

Doesn't the bridegroom have the authority to decide if he wants them or not?

Of course he does. However, he has the liberty to decide that he doesn't want them.

6. Matthew 12:31-32 (ESV)  Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

- Here, we see the famous teaching on the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Irregardless of what a person believes this blasphemy is, or whether or not it can be committed today, we must not miss an important aspect of what Jesus teaches here.

God chooses not to forgive someone who commits this sin.

Forgiveness is an active choice that is made. It's not passive.

God actively limits His forgiveness. He doesn't extend His saving mercy and grace to those who commit this sin.

7. John 17:6-9 (ESV)  I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.

Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you.

For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

- These verses are part of what is known as the high priestly prayer.

Jesus prays to the Father, and states these things.

Not only does He state that the ones who believed, were given to Him by the Father, but that He is not praying for the world, but only those whom the Father has given Him out of the world.

This is the teaching of Christ.

The atonement provided by Christ, is indeed limited. Not by the actions of individuals, but from the actions of the Father in the first instance.

The Father gives people to Christ. Those are the people whose sins Christ atoned for on the cross.

Christ isn't even praying for the world, but only for those that the Father had given to Him out of the world.

That is the doctrine of limited atonement... according to Christ.